It seems to me that a big audience wrongly correllates the following two pairs:
1 )
cautiousness (avoiding unforseeable risk, in chess)
---
egoism, trickyness (intrigues and negotiations behind the scene, in life).
and:
2 )
aggressiveness (risk and bravery, up to adventure, in chess)
----
altruism, honesty, openmindedness (in life).
I heard those accusations about Petrosian, Karpov and now Kramnik (see 1)), with very few evidence in the last case (I did not like that Kramnik took the place in a match with Kasparov, which BELONGED to Shirov...).
I heard also the opinion that Kasparov and Topalov belong to the group 2).
Also wrong, Kasparov is guilty for the long-year division of the chess-world, and Topalov made up this disgusting toilet legend ...
Both acted so to maximize their income and influence.
I am not saying anything against chess qualities of all these players, neither I know wether or not the above are nice or not in every respect...
I just feel that life is never simple, and a person can do good and bad things at different moments.
Dear Mandelshtam cautiousness (in chess) is no always the alter ego of life-egoism, this view seems to me unidimensional.
Kasparov was extremely arrogant, he wanted to get everything and almost being omnipotent but he was very "ambitious" and aggressive, extremely creative and productive in chess! He made serious errors but he admitted these! To me, one (just one) reason for his defeat by Kramnik was his frustration and his lack of motivation!
In the game demonstrated above - Kramnik vs Morozevich - dated September 2007 - Kramnik's rating was 2811? I recall during his wcc with topalov (2813) in 2006 kramnik's rating was 2700+. Afterwards Topalov's rating dropped the 2800 boarder until recently Anand crossed the boarder again. Anyway that's only a small detail I shouldn't even mention.
Kramnik, in his website mentioned that other than chess he's into other disciplines as well, such as soccer and boxing etc. He's not 100% into chess.
The horrible blunder in his match against Fritz 10 (remember the queen and knight combo checkmate) is... I don't know what I'd call it.
But thanks to his victory over Topalov which proved beyond any shadow of doubts that the classical line of champions which he held was and will always be, the only legit.
Kasparov once pointed out prior to Kramnik's match with Topa was that Kram's understanding of the game is way deeper than Top's.
I don't know whether Kramnik does simul exhibits or anything similar to what Kasparov does to popularise chess. I've read that Anand has been into business with AMD. I like that. Has Kramnik any apprentice or protege?
I don't care whatever Kramnik's style is. As long as we have a legit champion who can elevate chess to a higher epoch, that's what matters. There's Kobe, there's Lebron, but still nobody comes close to Michael Jordan. Fischer's dead, Kasparov's still around, like it or not Anand, Kasparov's still the best.
I can say that his style very tense and if you make a mistake playing against him is often punished is crudest way. I like this style very much. A good example is a game against Ivanchuk from Dos Hermanas (1996)
http://www.ishipress.com/kk-match.htm
Can someone please explain to me why Kasparov gave 2 short draws with white in these games? In a match in which he is trailing and every white counts dearly he gives 2 short "GM" draws? The only way this can be explained is that he simply wasnt fighting to win the match.
There is a style of play among the top professional's called "playing not to lose"
Gata Kamsky is another player with this style besides Kramnik.
Alot of times beause you are always only looking for the move(s) that only equalize, your mind set(perspective) is such that you will not look for or miss the winning line(s). Always striving for the initiative, without overreaching, is the mind set(perspective) of the hunter/killer it keeps you sharp, and keeps your opponent on his heels. It is difficult for your opponent to analyze calmly when there are always dangerous threats coming from you. Eventually he begins to see ghosts in the position. From that position your opponent is off balance. Eventually all he/she needs is a little push.
The old saying in chess is, "The THREAT is worse than the execution."
The other old saying is, " The best defense is a good offense"
The professional gunslinger walks into the bar keeping his back to the wall and his hands on his six shooters. That is the style of play I am looking for in a world champion.
Long live Bobby's style.
Until Vladimir Borisovich goes onto my payroll, I don't feel in a position to dictate to him how he goes about trying to achieve his goals.
THAT IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT!!! Here lies all the beauty of the clash of the different approaches and the clash of characters! THIS IS TRUE EXCITEMENT!
But what an extension to the procedures' domain... And the bad habit to play rarely and not to win first place often... and then -again- negotiations and so on... HERE AND ONLY HERE IS MY POINT.
Just as a matter of curiosity, I looked at win, loss, draw numbers for various world champions on an online data base. This interesting factoid struck me:
Karpov +1138 -292 =1399 (65%)
Tal +1142 -311 +1323 (65%)
(This excludes exhibitions, blitz games, etc.) The master of attack and the master of defense essentially had very similar results from their different styles of play.
Kramnik's numbers were +487 -131 +764 (62.9%)
For those who might question the fighting spirit of Bobby Fischer, just for comparision, his numbers were +441 -89 =251 (72.5%) (!).
For those who might question the fighting spirit of Bobby Fischer, just for comparision, his numbers were +441 -89 +251 (72.5%) (!).
Wow! That's great piece of information. It's very interesting too. I would suppose Tal not to have that much difference with Karpov (and it's confirmed by the stats), I think he's exaggerated a lot on the 'style' aspect, but I would suppose the same with Fischer too, and it turns out he is really different.
I would suppose Tal not to have that much difference with Karpov (and it's confirmed by the stats), I think he's exaggerated a lot on the 'style' aspect, but I would suppose the same with Fischer too, and it turns out he is really different.
Perhaps the clearest examples of how different Fischer was are his results from the 1963-64 U.S. Championship tournament (11-0) and his wins in the 1971 championship candidates matches against Taimanov (6-0) and Larsen (6-0). Obviously he had the victories well in hand and could have taken the matches with draws the last few games, but he always went for the win. Obviously that is a big contrast to someone like Kramnik who is happy to win a match +2 -1 =21 if that gets the job done. But winning a match is winning a match, so if Kramnik can do it that way, it's hard to argue that he's going about it all wrong, even if he is less exciting than Fischer's zeal to win every game possible.
I have to say I am really tired of hearing people drone on about "fighting spirit." I can't help but picture those who post about that in a cheerleading outfit with pom poms waving. (No offense to anyone who posted here as I know people use that phrase allot)
As to different styles I am much more interested in watching Kramnik games than any other current player. I became interested in pro chess due to the deep blue matches. I wondered how any human could possibly compete with a computer that could see that many moves ahead. At the time I saw chess as nothing but tactics. Tactics aren’t mysterious in the least. I take here you take there I take there oops I’m a bishop down. To me tactics are sort of tedious and best done by computers. What is mysterious and fascinating in chess is how people like Capablanca and Kramnik play.
I always watch the games with my chess engine going. If it’s a tactical game that engine almost always pegs exactly what went wrong. But when Kramnik plays these equal looking positions he will often play a move the computer doesn’t like. So the computer will start out giving him a low eval. But then as it sits there the eval climbs. J Its like Kramnik is telling the computer “no look at this again” and the computer says “oh yeah now I see.” Consider the way Kramnik schooled fritz in the first half of Baharain. Yes in the second half he started to get too cocky and the match ended up drawn but, for me, *that* was really something to behold.
Don’t get me wrong tactical players can do this from time to time. A great example of this is Smirnin versus (I think it was) chess tiger. However most of the other times that players get an edge over computers is by playing a certain new opening. That is what Kasparov did against Junior. You will also see Topalov and Leko had the computers fooled in games against Kramnik during their WC matches. Leko won, Topalov missed a checkmate and ended up losing. It’s hard to say that one was opening prep for Leko as he was using allot of time. But Topalov’s advantage was as he himself later explained from opening prep.
But although Topalov and Kramnik both missed that checkmate Topalov still had a considerable edge thanks to his prep. Exactly how did Kramnik turn that game around and win it? After that missed mat there were no really clear blunders he just sort of outplayed Topalov a little bit each move.
As for Fischer loving the game because he likes to crush his opponents well I don’t respect him for that at all. I much prefer Kramniks attitude where he seems amicable with the players on a personal level. I think that is the more admirable trait to have.
Amicable during long negotiations?!? Even Kasparov, Karpov and Korchnoi did less!!!
I have to say that my favorite "positionel" player is Anatoly Karpov. Victor Korchnoi too is a great strategist and a great fighter too! Akiba Rubinstein also and others. Anyway at the level of Kramnik's play there isn't either pure strategist or pure tactician, that would be a misconception which I don't believe you are sharing! The same is true for Capablanca's era also. Even Tal and Bronstein had to understand a lot of chess strategy...
Finally I have to repeat that Kramnik's play is great and his best games are more than wonderful and exciting. His attitude towards the actual struggle and his fighting spirit frustrates me... Victor Korchnoi and Anatoly Karpov have (had...) the very same style (that of Capablanca, Petrosian and Kramnik) but there was much more excitement in K-K events, especially during eighties!
I'm not sure what you mean to say those three did less. Kramnik has to be right up there as far as players trying to do good for chess. If it were up to Kasparov we would still have a split with him hand picking opponents. If it were up to Anand (very nice guy though he is) he would just as soon have a tournament decide the WC each cycle. Topalov? well don't even get me started.
Kramnik followed through with the promises he made in winning the crown from Kasparov. Kasparov backed out due to a technicallity about deadlines and refused to play in the dortmund qualifier. Kramnik gave then agreed to the Prague agreement to try and reunite. Kasparov blew his match with ponomariov because of a dispute about free days or something. Who knows.
Kramnik tried to create something in the form of the ACP to in part counterbalance krazy Kirsan and FIDE. He had decent some success. he didn't try to dominate it and actually stepped down to avoid that appearance.
He tried like crazy to get a decent match system but the funding wasn't there when the title was split. So he focused on getting a match against Topalov. It was pulling teeth to get Topalov to agree but he managed. Unfortunately in order to do that he had to agree to then defend his title in a stupid tournament format. Now he is still pushing for WC matches. He has this one against Anand.
Fischer did allot for chess by virtue of his being American and playing a Russian in the WC. But neither Fischer Karpov nor Kasparov ever put others in chess nearly as close to their own self interest as Kramnik did.
As far as being more excitement from KK events in the 80s I'm not sure. Certainly then the WC cycle was much much healthier. FIDE has done allot of damage to the WC title so I would think there was more interest then. But I doubt it was because of fewer short draws or something like that. I haven't compared short draws but I think you will find quite a few in those KK matches. Even in the Kasparov Kramnik match most of the short draws happened when Kasparov had white.
I've heard that he has been ill for some time now. This could help explain his sub-par perform at Dortmund. He's also not played much. Another reason could be the fact that he is preparing for a World Championship match., perhaps both!
As for his style, I can see how he's a bit of a Marmite character, you either love or hate it/him.
I've always liked the way that he's conducted himself (especially during the toilet break saga) and felt that he's a person whose company would be enjoyable.
I think that the top ten needs crashes of styles, it makes thinks more exciting, you can cheer for the corner you accosiate with. As for him being a good player, there seems absoloutely no doubt that he's achevied a level of chess that mere mortals like us will never understand, and this can be said of anyone that reaches the topten.
After all that though, I'd like to see Anand win!
I like that comparison of fischer to other players. The guy had the quickest draw and surest shot of any chessplayer in history.
I have been told that bobby kept his sixshooters perfectly cleaned and loaded for bear! He certainly slew some bear in his time.
I keep my guns loaded and ready but alas I can never attain anywhere near Bobby's status.--SIXGUNS
Join Chess.com for free to add your comment! Already a member? Then login now to comment.